Mediaboss Marketing

Coups in Chad, Sudan, Guinea and Mali. Damaging and destabilising civil conflict in Ethiopia and Mozambique. Growing criminality and insecurity in Nigeria. The continuation of the Sahel crisis, which is impacting political violence in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Mali. Flawed elections in Chad, Ethiopia, Uganda and even one of the continents former democratic leading lights, Benin.

The outbreak of violence and looting that followed ex-President Jacob Zumas arrest in South Africa, described by some as the countrys darkest hour since the end of apartheid. A drawn out political crisis in eSwatini, where the continents last absolute monarchy is resorting to increasingly desperate and brutal strategies to retain power. And, most recently, the return of long term dictator Yahya Jammehs political party to government if via a coalition in Gambia.

Off the back of these developments it would be easy to paint 2021 as the year that the dream of democracy died in Africa especially as it was not a one off. Afropessimists and those who argue that democracy is completely unsuited to the African context certainly interpreted the combination of political instability and rising authoritarianism in this way. But there is another story to tell about Africa in 2021 which focusses less on democratic decline and more on democratic resilience.

Despite growing public concern about the direction of political travel, there is no evidence of widespread support for one-party states, which have often been claimed to represent a form of government more suited to African societies. Instead, citizens dissatisfaction with the way democracy is working has led to stronger demands for accountable and representative government. In turn, this helps to explain why 2021 saw opposition victories in Sao Tome and Principe and Zambia, as well as protests against corrupt and abusive rule in a wide range of countries from Benin to Zimbabwe.

Democracy is under threat, but has also proved to be remarkable resilient. This is not simply because it is supported by Western governments from thousands of miles away. A much more important factor is that it is deeply rooted in the hopes and aspirations that people have for their own countries.

It is true that the poor performance of many governments over the last few years, and consistent controversy over electoral manipulation, has led to falling public satisfaction with how democracy is working. The Afrobarometer has just dropped the results of its latest round of nationally representative surveys conducted in 34 countries between 1999 and 2021. As ever, their data which is freely available here has an amazing amount to tell us about public attitudes and perceptions. The latest findings reveal that a majority of citizens are dissatisfied with democracy in 26 (76%) of the 34 countries included in the sample. In some countries, satisfaction is so low that it is almost non-existent: just 11% in Gabon and 17% in Angola.

Along with the fact that some of the coups that took place over the last two years were celebrated in the streets, it would be easy to interpret this as evidence that people have given up on democracy and want authoritarian strong men who can deliver order and discipline. But a closer look at these coups and the Afrobarometer suggests a very different conclusion.

Many of those who initially celebrated coups in Guinea and Mali did so because they removed leaders who had themselves undermined democracy. In Guinea, President Alpha Conde has manufactured an unpopular third term in office. In Mali, President Ibrahim Boubacar Keta was widely accused of having both delayed and manipulated the March 2020 legislative elections.

Strong public support for democracy (77% in Guinea, 62% in Mali) was one reason that the juntas now in power felt the need to justify their interventions, at least in part, on the basis of the need to restore democratic government.

High levels of popular support for democracy are also evident elsewhere. According to the Afrobarometer, more than 70% of citizens prefer democracy to any other form of government in 20 (58%) out of 34 countries. Sceptics sometimes respond to the findings of the Afrobarometer by arguing that people may not really know what democracy means, or that support for democracy doesnt imply a desire to impose checks and balances on leaders.

The latest Afrobarometer data shows that this is not true. Instead, at a time of democratic crisis there is growing support for the principle of political accountability. The proportion of citizens agreeing that governments should be held accountable even if that means it makes decisions more slowly increased from 52% to 62% between 2011 and 2021. In line with this, public support for the president always obeying the courts, even if s/he thinks they are wrong increased from 67% to 77%.

Perhaps the best evidence of the impressive resilience of democratic norms and values is the fact that support for democracy is often highest in countries where it is under threat. In 2021, this includes Benin (81%), Ethiopia (90%), Zimbabwe (78%) and Zambia (84%) where the survey was conducted before authoritarian President Edgar Lungu was defeated at the ballot box.

In other words, dissatisfaction with the way democracy is working doesnt indicate that people have given up on it, but rather that they want more. In countries such as Zimbabwe, low satisfaction with democracy (41%) has driven a rejection not of democratic government but rather of the authoritarianism that people experience on a daily basis. Fully 84% of Zimbabweans reject military rule, as do 87% of Ugandans and 89% of Kenyans and an average of 74% of the tens of thousands of people interviewed by the Afrobarometer.

It is this democratic resilience that helps to explain some of the bright spots in 2021.

In Zambia, citizens ignored threats, a bias media and bribery to boot out President Edgar Lungus increasingly authoritarian government even though the election was far from free and fair. In Sao Tome and Principe, public desire for change resulted in another victory for the opposition.

In Nigeria, protestors organized memorials online and in person to commemorate those who died in the #endSARS protests of 2020 and to demand justice for fallen comrades. In eSwatini, protestors continue to risk arrest, torture and death despite the great odds stacked against them. And in Sudan, the coup of October 2021 was contested by a remarkable citizen uprising in which thousands of people once again risked their lives to demand civilian and democratic government.

Public support alone is not, of course, enough to protect or advance democracy, and it is clear that the institutions designed to safeguard democratic principles have eroded in many countries. Zimbabweans do not want to live under a strong man but they have little choice in the mater at present.

What it does mean, however, is that the more governments abuse democratic norms and values, the harder they will find it to legitimise and hence sustain their rule. The juntas have taken recently taken power in countries like Guinea, Mali and Sudan will soon learn this lesson to their cost if they renege on their promise to restore democratic rule.

Read the original post:
Africa in 2021: The end of democracy? - The Africa Report

Yes, Joe Biden not only can but must have a second inauguration, or we may not have those for a while. Photo: Rob Carr/Getty Images

The Democratic Party has a big strategic problem looking ahead to the next two election cycles. The 2022 midterms are stacked decisively against Democrats, and the survival of the current governing trifecta in Washington is extremely unlikely. So while what happens between now and next November could affect the extent of Democratic defeats (with Senate control being pretty much a toss-up), the productive legislative phase of the Biden administration will soon be over. That means Democrats from Joe Biden on down need already to be thinking about 2024, when the stakes include, in addition to the strong possibility of a Republican governing trifecta, the continuation of the United States as a fully functioning democracy.

If Donald Trump himself runs and wins in 2024, American will enter a terrifying period in which the country will be governed by a man with zero respect for basic democratic norms and who has suffered zero consequences for his past misconduct. Even if Trump does not run, he has already corrupted the GOP and destroyed its commitment to every past notion of faith in democratic institutions to a degree that any foreseeable successor as presidential nominee will be a seasoned Big Liar and election subverter promoting an agenda that includes radical reductions in the right to vote and to control ones own bodily integrity (assuming, as we should, that the Supreme Court is on the brink of reversing Roe v. Wade).

But here is the core problem: Voters dont much care about the threat to democracy, as CNN explains:

Attempts tomeddle with the certificationof the Electoral College count and thepartisan takeoversof the voting infrastructure dont seem to be front of mind for an electorate drained by nearly two years of pandemic living and a creeping sense ofeconomic panic, and that worries a range of Democratic governors gearing up for campaigns who gathered in New Orleans this weekend for grim meetings about their 2022 electoral prospects.

Indeed, some Democratic governors think of saving democracy as a boring process issue compared to titanic concerns like holding down gasoline prices:

Most everyday people are worried about their kids getting a good education, worried about getting paid for, making sure their roads are fixed, being able to connect to high-speed internet, [North Carolina Governor Roy] Cooper said. The political process issues Ive never been a real fan of making them a central part of messaging.

So perhaps this means Democrats must reduce gasoline prices to save democracy, or at least make it clear they care a lot more about reducing gasoline prices than about boring or inexplicable stuff like election laws.

But because Democratic elites do understand what could happen if Trump becomes president in 2024 by hook or by crook, on an explicit platform of I never lose, they really need to begin right now developing a three-year plan for avoiding that calamity. Here are some factors that might shape such a plan:

In the ongoing debate as to whether Democrats should vindicate the values and interests of their core constituencies, or instead to pander as aggressively as possible to broad public opinion, I have typically been in the former camp. But in the emergency conditions Democrats and the country face between now and 2024, they need all the public support they can muster lest by 2025 they have no power and perhaps even no freedom to pursue any sort of agenda. So popularism, the identification of the Donkey Party with what the public wants, if it does not actively contradict core principles, is a practical necessity. Since changing perceptions of political parties takes a while, it should begin right now with the final touches being placed on Bidens Build Back Better legislation, to the extent Joe Manchin allows it. Certainly, any version of BBB that clearly and conspicuously helps lower-to-middle-class families meet concrete costs of living like child care, housing, energy costs, or just the cost of raising kids would move in the right direction.

While popularism may well mitigate Democratic losses in 2022, its no time for nave hopes that it or anything other than a sudden end to COVID-19 and a big inflation-free economic boom with a big backlash to Supreme Court extremism on abortion added in could make 2022 the third midterm since FDRs first term in which the presidents party gained House seats. What it might do is to strengthen the party going into the far more consequential election of 2024 while improving conditions in the country as perceived by persuadable voters. If Democrats actually can give middle-class voters confidence they can better deal with or better yet, avoid the inflation that has long been poisonous for progressive politics, then said voters may be more open to those boring process issues like maintaining a functioning constitutional democracy.

As Bill Clinton showed in 1996 and Barack Obama in 2012, presidents can bounce back from midterm losses even midterm disasters to win second terms. But that means beginning to strengthen the presidents popularity now.

National-political-party leaders naturally want to spread resources around as much as possible to satisfy hungry little birdy mouths. And leaders engaged in specific electoral venues are going to focus on greasing the squeakiest wheels in their worlds. Thus even if House Democrats and their donors know the odds of hanging onto the House are 5 percent, the marginal seats that will determine control are likely to get the greatest attention, and the same is true of those involved in Senate, gubernatorial, and state-legislative races.

That needs to be replaced in the emergency conditions of 2022 by a party-wide strategy for focusing on 2024 general-election battlegrounds, particularly those where power over voting rules and election administration are at stake in the midterms. To be upfront about it, the partisan affiliation of the secretary of state in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada and of the governor of those states plus Pennsylvania (where the secretary of state is a gubernatorial appointee) could have a large bearing on Trumps election coup opportunities. So too with the partisan control of legislatures, Trumps favored vehicle for choosing electors no matter what voters want. It certainly matters to Democrats locally whether they control similar offices in clearly red or blue states. But from a national party point of view at this moment in history, it just doesnt matter whether the governor of Massachusetts, Illinois, or dare I say it? New York is a Democrat or a Republican. Maintaining control of the commanding heights of the rules governing the 2024 elections and the administration of the results to provide for a neutral playing ground friendly to voters is the best way to ensure that it is not our last free presidential election for a good while.

Yes, many voters are bored or confused by laws governing voting and elections. For that matter, the third of the electorate composed of base Republican voters is all but convinced that Trumps electoral coup preparations are the only way to save democracy from Democrats who believe in such nefarious schemes as making it easier to register to vote and to vote by mail or in person on pre-election Sundays (often used by Black churches to get souls to the polls). Scratch a conservative concerned about election fraud and you will usually find someone who doesnt really believe those people should hold votes equal to their own).

So campaigning strictly on saving democracy wont work among those who might be willing to tolerate a little fascism if its lubricated by cheaper petroleum products. But not talking about the threat to democracy at all is simply self-destructive. And as Politico Playbook notes in defense of its own relatively sparse coverage of the GOPs descent into authoritarianism, Democratic leaders seem to be deferring too much to the polls showing voters are indifferent:

IfDemocraticcandidates arent talking about Americas anti-democratic movement, and ifPresidentJoe Biden,SpeakerNancy Pelosiand Senate Majority LeaderChuck Schumerarent doing it every day in Washington, then the coverage will reflect that. That is not a defense of the political-media ecosystem but just a description of it.

This isnt just a matter of raising the visibility of the threat to democracy generally. The prospect of a return to office in 2024 by an openly authoritarian and ever-more-extremist Trump is a sure-fire energizer for the Democratic base in 2024, whether or not it is or can be in the 2022 midterms. A Democratic Party pursuing swing-voter-pleasing popularism needs a save democracy warning to get its own most reliable voters to the polls. It helps that no exaggeration is necessary, and that Republican issue extremism as on abortion is also increasingly in play. The Americans most likely to face the personal risk of losing their rights or their livelihoods in an authoritarian Trump Restoration need to hear alarms early and often.

I speak of a three-year plan in part because three years from today presidential electors will cast ballots in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. There is no question Team Trump has a game plan for controlling that process whether or not Trump wins the popular vote in sufficient states to win an electoral-vote majority legitimately despite what might well be a third-straight national-popular-vote defeat. There is also no question that the Republican Party has determined for the moment at least not to stand in the way of MAGA preparations for a coup if it needs one. Sure, Democrats could get lucky and the threat might recede again. Or perhaps they could accidentally save democracy by simply taking the steps needed to restore Joe Bidens popularity (though Biden was pretty popular when Trump nearly stole the presidency last time around). Either way, its time to get started.

Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.

View post:
Democrats Need a Three-Year Plan to Save Democracy - New York Magazine

Scholars and policymakers should recognize the democratic benefits of public comments.

Ten years ago, I wrote an essay referring, in now quaint terms, to the torrents of E-Mail arriving on regulatory agency doorsteps, including several rulemakings that drew over 10,000 public comments. I have since argued that agencies needed to take these expressions of public views and preferences more seriously.

Over the last ten years, the volume of rulemaking comments has only grown. In 2021, the Government Accountability Office reported on the many millions of public comments submitted to rulemaking agencies between 2013 and 2017. The 2017 Federal Communications Commissions net neutrality rulemaking generated over 20 million public comments, and over 4 million comments were submitted in the Environmental Protection Agencys 2014 Clean Power Plan rulemaking.

These intermittent tidal waves of comments evidence the publics hunger to participate in government. They also represent a serious management challenge for agencies, one compounded by reports of comments in certain high profile rulemakings attributed to people who did not submit them or to nonexistent peoplenot to mention comments submitted by bots. Without question, agencies must filter false and bot comments from their dockets and act to deter them.

Some have responded, however, with a broadside attack on mass comments, criticizing individual comments as low in value, advancing the red herring that rulemaking is not a plebiscite, and concluding that the solution is to discourage even genuine individual comments. That approach would go too far. No one argues that rulemaking could be a plebiscite. Meanwhile, individual comments can importantly inform agency policy choices and make government more democratic.

Comments from individuals can be informational, supplying on-the-ground experiences, data, or arguments relevant to an agencys decision. All agree that these submissions are valuable. The critique of individual comments is aimed at expressions of preference. But views and preferences, including those expressed by individuals, are very frequently relevant to agency decisions.

Indeed, the text of the Administrative Procedure Act expressly recognizes this by entitling interested persons to submit written data, views, or arguments. Although the expertise and technical nature of many regulatory decisions is a partial source of agency legitimacyand some decisions can be wholly technicalAmericans are long past thinking of agencies as technocratic transmission belts for legislative policy decisions. Agencies use rulemaking again and again to make policy decisions that, by statute, extend far beyond technical matters and include value-laden issues.

Consider the following typical examples, some of which I have described elsewhere. All raise issues of value and policy, and individual comments expressing views are unquestionably relevant to them.

Or take another example involving matters of environmental justice and the quality of life. A 2020 rule implementing the National Environmental Policy Act removed the requirement that an agency assess a proposed actions cumulative impacts in its environmental impact analysis. This decision will especially impact low-income communities and communities of color, including communities in Southwest Detroit, where multiple polluting sources adjoin residential neighborhoods. Whether to require cumulative impacts analysis is not a technical issue but a policy decision about whether community quality of life concerns are important enough to justify lengthier environmental analyses.

Moreover, a commenters identity, where disclosed, can provide important context to the decision-making agency. That a person commenting on an Americans with Disabilities Act regulation uses a prosthetic leg surely should matter; the same for a person commenting on air quality rules who lives in a community in which multiple industrial sources are located.

Like all comments, individual comments are not free from flaws, even when they are genuine. Comments can be poorly informed or worse. I once located an accidentally uploaded credit card statement in a docket on health insurance regulation.

But typically, individual comments are far more than yes or no votes; they are supported by detailed reasons. That a comment uses language suggested by groups should not be a reason to dismiss it; well-funded groups and companies spend heavily to have their comments professionally drafted. The key point is that the comment communicates the individuals views.

When relevant and genuine, these comments enhance the agencys decision-making process and make it more democratic in several respects. First, they support the democratic responsiveness of the agency. Presidential and congressional oversight are critical, of course, but they have their limits as a means of conveying public views about a particular rulemaking proposal. Candidates will not anticipate some issues at the time of an election. Meanwhile, relatively few regulatory issues are even salient in the typical public discourse around a presidential election, let alone a congressional election, and candidate choices are limited. Information gathering by elected officials may be ad hoc or even haphazard. By contrast, the public comment process represents a chance for individuals and communities to express views specific to a particular policy decision.

Second, a public comment process may make the comment process more inclusive and representative overall, compared with a process too long dominated by regulated entities and well-funded industry groups. The comment process provides a chance for individualsparticularly those who are underrepresented because of their race, ethnicity, gender identity, resources, or other reasonsto participate actively in governance. Participation not only supports agencies but also more broadly fosters civic education and engagement.

Finally, comments in an agency proceeding can inform not only agency decision-makers but also elected officials who may not otherwise have systematic access to public views about a particular issue. A better understanding of public opinion can directly inform congressional and executive decision-making, as well as facilitate agency oversight.

But how should agencies handle commentsin whatever volumefrom individuals, particularly when those comments mainly focus on views, rather than data? No commentator suggests that rulemaking can function as a plebiscite. Nor could it, since by statute agencies must consider numerous factors, not solely public preferences. And even if comments presenting exclusively views could be identified and distinguished from those presenting only data or analysisa task that is probably impossibleagencies cannot legally refuse to consider comments expressing views.

Instead, agencies must continue to communicate openly about the comments that will be most relevant and helpful in a rulemaking.

And agencies must consider all relevant comments. A large volume of individual comments dominated by views or preferences might tip an agency off to unnoticed or under-communicated perspectives or important pockets of public resistance. A large volume of comments might also reveal public misunderstanding or widespread misinformation. In response, an agency might pause and engage these viewpoints, whether by outreach to particular communities or other measures.

An agency might, for example, usefully respond to misinformed comments with public education, as the Clinton Administration Department of Transportation did in a rulemaking on airbag on-off switches. Individuals wrote with largely unfounded worries about airbag dangers and expressed their wisheson personal liberty groundsto deactivate freely otherwise required airbags. Rather than authorizing widespread deactivation, the agency convened focus groups and concluded that a public information campaign addressing misconceptions would improve public understanding and better ensure safety. In other words, the agency might determine in a particular case that certain public views, including those expressed by large numbers of individuals, should yield to other factors.

But an agency should acknowledge and answer such comments, even briefly. The Department of Defenses response to comments on sexual assault prevention and the Federal Communications Commissions response in both recent net neutrality rulemakings are reasonable recent examples. An answer will convey the important message that individuals expressing their views to their government have been heard.

The door is now open to large volumes of comments. It cannot be closed, practically or legally.

It may take more time before we realize the democratic potential of public participation in rulemaking. But instead of seeking to deter individual comments, we should focus on the management challenges of ensuring comment integrity and how agencies inform and communicate with the public regarding public comments.

Nina A. Mendelson is the Joseph L. Sax Collegiate Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School.

This essay is part of a six-part series entitled Mass Comments in Administrative Rulemaking.

See the original post:
Democracy, Rulemaking, and Outpourings of Comments - The Regulatory Review

At least one person was killed and 331 injured when security forces used live rounds, rubber bullets and tear gas to disperse tens of thousands who took to the streets of Khartoum on Sunday to demand an end to military rule in Sudan, an authoritative medical group said.

The protests in Khartoum and elsewhere in the country were among the largest since a military takeover in October derailed Sudan's democratic transition and led to a political crisis.

A Sudanese protester helps another affected by tear gas during the clashes with security forces. EPA

A November 21 deal that reinstated Abdalla Hamdok, the prime minister of the civilian-led government dismissed by the military, fuelled street protests. For the protesters, the deal turned the former UN economist from a symbol of hope to a traitor.

The Doctors' Central Association identified the person killed on Sunday as Mohammed Magzoub Mohammed Ahmed, 28. It said he was shot in the chest with a live round at the Khartoum district of East Nile.

The association is linked to the pro-democracy movement but has a reputation for meticulously verifying and tallying casualties of political violence since the December 2018 start of a popular uprising against dictator Omar Al Bashir.

It said the 331 suffered injuries caused by rubber bullets, stun grenades and tear gas. It listed only three cases of protesters suffering live gunshot wounds, besides Mr Ahmed.

In a separate report, the Health Ministry said 123 people were injured in Sunday's violence, and all but two were in Khartoum. The other two were in Kassala, in eastern Sudan. The report made no mention of fatalities.

There was no immediate explanation for the discrepancy, but government figures on casualties during protests have routinely been on the conservative side.

Khartoum appeared tense on Monday, with hundreds of troops backed by armoured vehicles deployed across the city at intersections and near Nile bridges. Traffic in the sprawling metropolis was also unusually congested on Monday. There were no reports of renewed protests.

On Sunday, protesters were initially denied the use of Nile bridges linking the capitals three main districts.

A tight security ring was thrown around the presidential palace and the headquarters of the military, both of which are in central Khartoum.

Protesters celebrate after reaching Sudan's Nile-side presidential palace at the heart of Khartoum. Reuters.

But the protesters, showing determination not seen in post-takeover rallies, braved tear gas and stun grenades, breaking through the lines of troops and police to march on the palace. Several thousand reached the palaces gates and intended to stage a sit-in protest outside its walls.

Additional security forces later arrived at the scene and dispersed them with volleys of tear gas fired at quick succession, according to witnesses.

Sundays rallies, given their size and the resolve shown by their participants, have increased the pressure on Mr Hamdok and Gen Abdel Fattah Al Burhan, the army chief and leader of the October takeover.

The pair will now have to quickly find a way out of the crisis or face renewed unrest that could spiral out of control and push the country towards chaos.

Sudanese security forces guard the Republican Palace in Khartoum after protesters reached it. EPA

Sundays rallies marked the third anniversary of the start of the 2018 popular uprising that forced the military to remove Al Bashir from power in April 2019.

Behind the latest rallies are the Sudanese Professionals Association, the Forces for Freedom and Change, and the Resistance Committees, three main groups that engineered that 2018-2019 uprising.

We call on our people to continue escalating resistance against the coup until power is handed over to the people, the Forces for Freedom and Change said late on Sunday.

The people will triumph and the December Revolution will not be defeated we call on all forces of revolution and change to rally behind one popular front not just to defeat the coup but to build a new nation.

Updated: December 20th 2021, 4:02 PM

See the original post here:
Sudan's pro-democracy rallies leave one dead and more than 300 injured - The National

Confined to bed and forced to watch television coverage of the Senate for a week, an American citizen wouldnt see anything resembling the old School House Rock cartoon about How a Bill Becomes a Law.

Committees dont draft careful legislation after weeks of deliberation. Senators dont debate the pros and cons of that legislation on the floor. Instead, we cram everything we can into overstuffed budget bills passed at the stroke of midnight to keep the governments lights on.

Today, more than half of young Americans believe our democracy is failing or in trouble. One think tank recently labeled America a backsliding democracy. The Senate does not bear all of the blame, but it deserves a lot.

The Founders wanted the Senate to make its decisions after careful consideration and debate. Now the Senate never debates and almost never decides.

READ:Colorado Sun opinion columnists.

Thats because current Senate rules, commonly mis-described as the filibuster, require a supermajority of 60 votes to advance legislation to a final vote. These rules, which exist nowhere in the Constitution, empower 41 senators, who often represent as little as 24% of Americans, to block debate and decisions about broadly supported legislation from voting rights to gun safety.

Until this century, senators rarely used the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation, and almost always to block civil rights and enforce segregation. Now, members invoke it daily, forcing both parties to jam their priorities through reconciliation, a mutant parliamentary workaround that allows certain budget-related bills to pass with a simple majority.

The result is a crisis of American democracy: the majority cannot govern, which means the nation cannot act. Our sclerosis discredits our system of self-government at the very moment authoritarian governments like Russia and China argue that democracy cannot meet the challenges of the 21st century.

For our democracy to compete, we have to restore the Senate. And theres no way to do that without reforming rules that a minority of craven lawmakers are abusing to grind the body to a standstill.

Lets be more specific about what needs to happen:

I know that Republicans and their allies in the conservative media will argue that the filibuster is a vital part of American politics and that any change would be nothing more than a partisan power grab.

But lets be clear: this isnt the first time that the Senate has impeded American progress, and it wouldnt be the first time that Senate rules have changed in response.

Before the Civil War, the Senate sheltered the minority interests of slave holders. After the war, it enabled monopolists, robber barons, and isolationists to profit from the misery of the conflict and its aftermath.

Each time, crises forced the Senate to fundamentally change how it went about its business. And each change led to meaningful progress, including clearing the way for the passage of the 14th and 15th amendments to emancipate and enfranchise former slaves, sweeping anti-trust reforms, and long-delayed legislation to protect civil rights.

The bottom line is that Senate rules are not suspended in amber; they can and have changed with the times. No one knew this better than the late Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. More than once, Byrd reformed the Senate to better serve the nation. In 1975, he even led the effort to reduce the votes required to end debate and proceed to a final vote from 67 to 60, where it stands today.

As we consider reforms, we should reject the choice between making the Senate more like the House, where the majority runs roughshod over the minority, or accepting the procedural straightjacket of our own design. If we change the rules, we should also be prepared to live under them whether we are in the majority or not.

Our goal is not to secure an immediate partisan advantage. It is to make the Senate work again and refire the engine of American democracy for our nation, and for the world.

Michael Bennet represents Colorado in the U.S. Senate

The Colorado Sun is a nonpartisan news organization, and the opinions of columnists and editorial writers do not reflect the opinions of the newsroom. Read our ethics policy for more on The Suns opinion policy and submit columns, suggested writers and more to opinion@coloradosun.com.

Follow Colorado Sun Opinion on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.

We believe vital information needs to be seen by the people impacted, whether its a public health crisis, investigative reporting or keeping lawmakers accountable. This reporting depends on support from readers like you.

Continue reading here:
Opinion: Reform the filibuster to revive the Senate and democracy. - The Colorado Sun